• voidx@futurology.todayOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    I fail to understand why they stick with fossil fuels even though renewable deployments are cheaper than ever. Although there’s misinformation and politics, they should look at long term profits…

    • Salvo@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 days ago

      Sunk cost fallacy. They have already invested so much in fossil fuel infrastructure that they feel that if they give up now, they would have wasted all their money.

      The fact that that the money is wasted whether they pivot to renewables or not something they consider. In fact, if they can lever their existing infrastructure they can be much more competitive than any new renewable energy provider.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      Kremlin propaganda (in various ways, sometimes in free natural gaz) isn’t to be forgotten.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      If you depend on oil companies for “rationality”:

      That cheapest new energy is solar then wind gives the oil company a negative impact on its existing assets. Suppressing renewables through bribery/politics keeps consumers addicted to their product, and keeps prices high. Nationalizing oil companies, without compensation for shareholders, is both appropriate punishment, and only way to stop their lobbying corrupting democracy.